[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[F. Committee Reports]
[Â§ 58. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3119-3136]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 58. In General


    This division takes up the subject of committee reports as used in 
the reporting of bills and resolutions to the House for floor 
consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Commentary and editing by John T. Fee, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House rules provide that ``. . . [A]ll bills, petitions, 
memorials, or resolutions reported from a committee shall be 
accompanied by reports in writing. . . .'' (5) It is the 
duty of each committee chairman to promptly report approved measures to 
the House.(6) Moreover, by virtue of a change brought about 
by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act,(7) if the report 
is not filed by the chairman of the committee, the report may be filed 
by special direction of the committee. The rules provide that a 
majority of the members of a committee may sign a written request for 
the filing of a report on a measure it has approved. This request is 
filed with the committee clerk, who then imme
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
 6. Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a (1979).
 7. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3120]]

diately notifies the committee chairman of the request. Within seven 
calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) 
after the filing of the request, the committee report itself is to be 
filed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a (1979). 
        The rule also provides that it does not apply to a report of 
        the Committee on Rules, whose reports are to be presented to 
        the House within three legislative days after being ordered 
        reported by the committee, under Rule XI clause 4(c), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a record vote is taken in committee on a motion to report a 
public bill or resolution, the total number of votes cast for and 
against the reporting of such bill or resolution is to be included in 
the committee report.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. This requirement was added by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization 
        Act, Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970). It is 
        incorporated in Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(B), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 713d (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A change brought about by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act 
is the requirement that reports accompanying a public bill or joint 
resolution contain an estimate, made by the committee, of the costs 
anticipated in carrying out the measure, over a specified time, and a 
comparison of this estimate with that submitted by a government 
agency.(10) However, a bill may be reported without specific 
recommendations on the part of the reporting committee as to the 
passage or defeat of the proposed bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XIII clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979). 
        See Sec. 61, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act also added the requirement 
that the committee report include supplemental, additional or minority 
views of any committee member who gives notice, at the time of the 
committee approval of the report, of his intent to file such views 
within three days.(11) Previously, such views were published 
either through informal agreements within the committee or by obtaining 
the unanimous consent of the House to have them included after the 
report was filed.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979). 
        This provision does not apply to the Committee on Rules.
12. See Sec. Sec. 64.1-64.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A further requirement for committee reports is that they comply 
with the Ramseyer rule, which provides that changes in existing law 
that would be brought about by the proposed measure are to be printed 
or shown in the report in distinctive typography.(l3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 60, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3121]]

    Unless a report is privileged for immediate 
consideration,(14) it is delivered to the Clerk for printing 
and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the 
Speaker. Privileged reports are filed from the floor while the House is 
in session (unless filed by unanimous consent while the House is not in 
session), and referred to the appropriate calendar and ordered printed 
by the Speaker.(15) Assuming that the report is apparently 
valid and shows nothing on its face to impeach its 
authenticity,(16) the Speaker assigns the report, with its 
accompanying bill, to one of three calendars, for consideration in the 
future.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Privileged reports are discussed in Sec. 63, infra.
15. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1979).
16. See 111 Cong. Rec. 27407, 27481, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
        1965, where a report on a bill (S. 1698), was referred to the 
        Union Calendar, although the Chairman of the Committee on 
        Banking and Currency, Wright Patman (Tex.), later expressed 
        reservations about irregularities in the manner in which the 
        committee had considered and filed a report on the bill
17. Rule XIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 742 (1979). See Ch. 
        22 (calendars), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not rule on the sufficiency, insufficiency, or legal 
effect of reports.(18) However, the Chair does rule on 
points of order against consideration of a measure based on an alleged 
failure of a committee report to comply with the Ramseyer rule, the 
cost estimate requirement, or raising some question as to the alleged 
privileged status of the report. Even if it appears that a point of 
order would lie, defects in the reporting of a bill by a standing 
committee may be remedied in a proper case by adoption of a special 
rule from the Committee on Rules waiving that point of 
order.(19) Alternatively, the House may grant unanimous 
consent for the consideration of a bill and thereby waive all points of 
order against consideration of the bill and its
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sec. Sec. 58.3, 58.4, infra.
19. Sec. 58.6, infra. report or consider the bill under suspension of 
        the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 imposed, effective Jan. 3, 
1975, several new requirements for inclusion of matter in committee 
reports [Rule XI clause 2(l)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(e) 
(1975); Rule XI clause 2(l)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(f) 
(1975)]: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) The report of any committee on a measure which has been 
    approved by the committee (A) shall include the oversight findings 
    and recommenda

[[Page 3122]]

    tions required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X separately set 
    out and clearly identified; (B) the statement required by section 
    308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out 
    and clearly identified, if the measure provides new budget 
    authority or new or increased tax expenditures; (C) the estimate 
    and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
    Office under section 403 of such Act, separately set out and 
    clearly identified, whenever the Director (if timely submitted 
    prior to the filing of the report) has submitted such estimate and 
    comparison to the committee; and (D) a summary of the oversight 
    findings and recommendations made by the Committee on Government 
    Operations under clause 4(c)(2) of Rule X separately set out and 
    clearly identified whenever such findings and recommendations have 
    been submitted to the legislative committee in a timely fashion to 
    allow an opportunity to consider such findings and recommendations 
    during the committee's deliberations on the measure.
        (4) Each report of a committee on each bill or joint resolution 
    of a public character reported by such committee shall contain a 
    detailed analytical statement as to whether the enactment of such 
    bill or joint resolution into law may have an inflationary impact 
    on prices and costs in the operation of the national] economy.

    Furthermore, Rule XI clause 2(l)(5) [House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 714 (1979)], as amended by the Committee Reform Amendments 
requires that a report bear upon its cover a recital that any 
supplemental, minority, or additional views, and any material submitted 
pursuant to Rule XI clause 2(l)(3)(C) from the Congressional Budget 
Office and (D) from the Committee on Government Operations, are 
included as part of the 
report.                          -------------------

Form and Content of Report

Sec. 58.1 The form and content of a committee report is governed by the 
    rules of the House and not by a law requiring the submission of 
    certain reports by executive agencies. Thus, a point of order will 
    not lie against a committee report on the ground that an executive 
    agency has failed to report to Congress in accordance with law.

    On July 12, 1967,(1) following a motion by Mr. Harold T. 
Johnson, of California, that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill establishing a 
commission, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against 
consideration of the bill. Mr. Gross con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 18558, 18559, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 20, to establish a National Water 
        Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3123]]

tended that an executive communication found in the report failed to 
comply with executive agency reporting requirements with respect to the 
legislation. Thereupon Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, sought 
recognition to be heard on the point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Iowa.
        The point of order, if it is a point of order at all, should 
    have come at the time the Executive communication was received. It 
    should not be made against the report which is now before the 
    Congress. The bill which we are considering is a bill from the 
    other body, received by this body in due course, and referred to 
    the committee which has jurisdiction over these matters, and it was 
    properly before the committee. It is now here in conformity with 
    the rules of the House.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of 
    order?
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the issue is plain.
        That is the issue in the point of order. No report accompanying 
    the bill conforms to the requirement of Public Law 801.
        Mr. Speaker, I do not know how, as suggested by the gentleman 
    from Colorado, a point of order could be made against a committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The law referred to by the gentleman from Iowa places the 
    obligation upon the executive departments or agencies or 
    independent offices to prepare their recommendations with respect 
    to the information contained in the law referred to. However, this 
    does not change any rule of the House of Representatives, and this 
    matter is before the House in accordance with the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Filing of Multiple Reports

Sec. 58.2 Two reports may not be filed from the Committee on Rules on 
    the same resolution.

    On Jan. 17, 1950,(3) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
attempted to report a resolution proposing an amendment to Rule XI to 
repeal the 21-day rule, which resolution had just been filed by the 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois. 
However, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated that the second 
report was not necessary, and said that two reports could not be filed 
on the same resolution at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 499-501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendment of Paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House 
                             of Representatives

        Mr. Sabath, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 133, Rept. No. 1477), which was 
    referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

[[Page 3124]]

            Resolved, That paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of 
        the House of Representatives is hereby amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(c) The Committee on Rules shall present to the House 
        reports concerning rules, joint rules, and order of business, 
        within three legislative days of the time when ordered reported 
        by the committee. If such rule or order is not considered 
        immediately, it shall be referred to the calendar and, if not 
        called up by the Member making the report within seven 
        legislative days thereafter, any member of the Rules Committee 
        may call it up as a question of privilege and the Speaker shall 
        recognize any member of the Rules Committee seeking recognition 
        for that purpose. If the Committee on Rules shall make an 
        adverse report on any resolution pending before the committee, 
        providing for an order of business for the consideration by the 
        House of any public bill or joint resolution, on days when it 
        shall be in order to call up motions to discharge committees it 
        shall be in order for any Member of the House to call up for 
        consideration by the House any such adverse report, and it 
        shall be in order to move the adoption by the House of said 
        resolution adversely reported notwithstanding the adverse 
        report of the Committee on Rules, and the Speaker shall 
        recognize the Member seeking recognition for that purpose as a 
        question of the highest privilege.''

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution concerning which 
    instructions were given by the Rules Committee this morning to the 
    effect that I should file it. I am stepping aside with the 
    understanding that the chairman file it and that he will ask the 
    Speaker to recognize him on Thursday to call it up, and in the 
    event he the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] is not present 
    that I may call it up or some member of the committee favorable to 
    the resolution shall call it up. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Sabath: To be candid, I did not hear the statement. I did 
    not hear the gentleman's statement.
        Mr. Cox: I said that the understanding between the chairman and 
    the committee is that I am stepping aside as the member designated 
    to file the report, leaving it to the chairman to file it and he 
    files it with the understanding that he will ask the Speaker to 
    recognize him on Thursday to call it up; and in the event the 
    chairman is not present, the understanding is that I shall call it 
    up or some other member of the committee favorable to the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has considered 
    the rule on the fair employment practices bill today. The committee 
    ordered reported the resolution, House Resolution 133, introduced 
    by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], on Friday, January 13, 
    which would eliminate the procedure under the rule which we adopted 
    on the first day of this Congress giving the committees the right, 
    when the Committee on Rules fails to act within 21 days, to file a 
    resolution to discharge the Committee on Rules.
        Today we were considering a rule for the FEPC bill, this being 
    the third day of its deliberations on this measure. The rule on the 
    Cox resolution was granted, over my protest, of course, last 
    Friday. Under the rules of the House, the chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules has 3 days within which to file a report on a rule. I 
    intended to file the report within this time because I have never 
    violated the rules of the

[[Page 3125]]

    House in my 44 years of service and 20 years as a member of the 
    Committee on Rules.
        But today some members of the Committee on Rules thought the 
    report on the Cox resolution should be filed immediately and that 
    the right to file should be taken away from the chairman, and that 
    the rule should be called up by the gentleman who introduced it, 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox]. I felt that that was a 
    violation of the rules of the House, because the Rules of the House 
    plainly state as follows:

            It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee 
        to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or 
        House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure 
        approved by such committee--

        The word ``promptly'' means within the rules--within 3 days--
    which I did intend to do. I thought originally that the motion of 
    the gentleman from Georgia was out of order and so ruled, but it 
    being 12 o'clock we adjourned, but nevertheless some of the members 
    remained and wanted to act upon it.
        In order to avoid any controversy that might develop I agreed 
    to file it today instead of tomorrow, and I am filing the report 
    today on the resolution.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] approached me on 
    the floor and wanted to know if I was not present Thursday, whether 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] could call up the resolution. 
    I said if I were not here Thursday, I would have no objection to 
    Mr. Cox calling it up.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sabath: I yield.
        Mr. Cox: I have no desire to air publicly what took place in 
    the Rules Committee this morning. It is the understanding that the 
    gentleman will file the rule today and will ask the Speaker to 
    recognize him on Thursday to call it up, and, in the event he is 
    not here, it is agreeable that some other member of the committee 
    do so.
        Mr. Sabath: That was an afterthought. I do not know. I know 
    that the committee agreed and the House agreed to take up another 
    bill in which I and the House are very much interested. I have 
    filed my report. As to the other procedure, I do not know whether 
    it would be in order for me to agree to call it up Thursday, 
    because I do not know whether that will give time enough for 
    Members to be here on this important question.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, that is not in accord with the agreement. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules I file a privileged resolution; and permit 
    me to make this statement; these differences may be ironed out 
    later.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Georgia if 
    it is the same resolution that has already been reported to the 
    House.
        Mr. Cox: I presume it is the same resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair doubts very seriously whether two 
    reports on the same resolution can be filed at the same time.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the filing of this rule at this time.

[[Page 3126]]

        The Speaker: Permit the Chair to handle this matter.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But I am making a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair was clarifying the situation. The Chair 
    is of opinion that two reports cannot be filed on the same 
    resolution at the same time. . . .
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Members are 
    fully informed as to the rule governing the calling up of 
    resolutions reported by the Rules Committee. Am I correct in my 
    understanding that the gentleman from the Rules Committee who files 
    a rule is the only one permitted to call up the resolution for a 
    period of seven legislative days?
        The Speaker: That is true unless the committee directs 
    otherwise.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, do not the rules of the House 
    provide that the gentleman who files a resolution with the Speaker 
    is the only one permitted to call up the resolution and does the 
    Speaker mean that the Committee on Rules can by a majority vote 
    override what is provided in the rules of the House?
        The Speaker: Of course, the chairman could request another 
    member of the committee to call up a resolution in his absence. 
    That certainly could be done. Otherwise, if the chairman of the 
    Rules Committee were out of town continuously the Committee on 
    Rules could not offer a resolution and, as a matter of fact, the 
    House could not function either.
        Mr. Eberharter: I beg the Chair's pardon?
        The Speaker: If it were otherwise, and if the chairman of the 
    committee were out of town the whole session, the Committee on 
    Rules could not operate, neither could the House.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, my point is that the gentleman who 
    files a petition has the privilege for seven legislative days to 
    call up the resolution and failing to call it up within that time, 
    after the 7 days any member of the Rules Committee can call it up; 
    is that correct?
        The Speaker: That is what the rule says but that is not what we 
    have been talking about for the last half hour. The Chair trusts no 
    more parliamentary inquiries will be addressed to the Chair for the 
    simple reason that he would like to see these misunderstandings 
    composed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, Mr. Cox was authorized to 
file the report because it was evidently feared that the Chairman of 
the Rules Committee, Mr. Sabath, would not immediately do so, and, if 
he did file it, would not call it up within the seven days allowed him 
under the rule. Mr. Cox stepped aside to permit Mr. Sabath to file the 
rule under an alleged understanding that the chairman would call it up 
on a specified day. During discussion of the matter, Mr. Cox attempted 
to file a report on the same resolution and the Speaker expressed 
serious doubt whether two reports

[[Page 3127]]

on the same resolution could be filed at the same time and declined to 
recognize Mr. Cox. The question then arose as to whether the resolution 
could be called up in the seven-day period in the absence of the 
chairman by any other member of the committee. The Speaker stated that 
in this event the chairman could designate another member of the 
committee to call it up or the Committee on Rules could otherwise 
provide.

Sufficiency of Report

Sec. 58.3 The sufficiency of a report of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities relating the contempt of a witness was for the House and 
    not the Speaker to decide.

    On June 26, 1946,(4) after Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, 
by direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, presented a 
privileged report declaring that a witness, Corliss G. Lamont, was in 
contempt of the House of Representatives. Mr. Vito Marcan- tonio, of 
New York, made a point of order against the report on the ground that 
it did not contain all of the transcript of what transpired before the 
committee with respect to the witness, but only what the committee 
determined to be material. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that it 
was for the House to determine the sufficiency, not the Speaker, and 
overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against 
    the report on the ground that it does not contain all of the 
    transcript of what transpired before the committee with respect to 
    this witness. On page 2 of the report, at the end of the first 
    paragraph, the committee concedes that this is not a full 
    transcript. It states: ``The material parts of his testimony 
    follow.'' In other words, the House has before it only that portion 
    of the testimony which the committee conceives to be material. This 
    deprives the House of having the full proceedings before it; 
    consequently, the House will be asked to vote on whether or not 
    this witness is to be cited for contempt and whether or not the 
    House is to recommend prosecution of this witness, without having 
    the full story before it, without having all of the testimony 
    before it. All that is given is part of the testimony which the 
    committee describes as material.
        I respectfully submit in support of my point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker, that what is material and what is not material should be 
    determined by the House, because the House has to pass on this 
    question and the majority of the Members of this House must vote in 
    the affirmative in order to rec

[[Page 3128]]

    ommend these contempt proceedings. To do so it must have the entire 
    transcript before it. Consequently I submit that the report is 
    defective and that the report should be referred back to the 
    committee by the Speaker, directing it to produce the full 
    transcript of what transpired so that the House may have the entire 
    proceedings before it before the House Members cast their votes.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio] has stated the point exactly, and that is that 
    this is not a matter for the Chair to pass upon but is a matter for 
    the House to pass upon. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Construing Restrictions in Report

Sec. 58.4 The Chair does not pass on the legal effect of restrictions 
    set forth in a report on an appropriations bill, but not spelled 
    out in the bill itself. This is a matter for the Committee of the 
    Whole to decide in its considerations of the bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1955,(5) Mr. Robert C. Wilson, of 
California, questioned certain limitations on spending for various 
programs, which limitations were contained in the report on an 
appropriation bill but not in the bill itself. Mr. Wilson questioned 
whether such limitations would be legally effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5502, an appropriations bill for the Department of 
        State and certain other agencies for fiscal 1956. The committee 
        report contained recommendations as to maximum amounts to be 
        available to the U.S. Information Agency for certain specified 
        functions, as, for example, not to exceed $200,000 for exhibits 
        for which $334,000 was requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, replied that the omission of 
the limitations from the bill was unimportant because the limitations 
were expected to become law, Mr. Wilson inquired of Chairman Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, whether the limitations were binding. As the 
following exchange shows, Chairman Cooper was of the opinion that the 
question was one to be resolved by the Committee of the Whole.

        Mr. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wilson of California: Are limitations written in a 
    committee report such as this, but not written into the wording of 
    the legislation, binding?
        The Chairman: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a 
    matter to be settled by the members of the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Wilson of California: I merely wanted it for my own 
    understanding and information, for I am fairly new here. It seems 
    to me rather unusual to

[[Page 3129]]

    consider matter written into a report of the same finding effect on 
    an administrator as though written into the law itself.
        The Chairman: It is not the prerogative of the Chair to pass 
    upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of a committee report.

Separate Committee Approval of Report

Sec. 

     58.5 A point of order that a committee did not vote to approve a 
    report accompanying a bill as required by its rules is properlymade 
    in the committee and not in the House, since no rule of the House 
    requires committees to separately approve legislative reports, and 
    because such reports are in the nature of argument and are not 
    directly acted upon by the House.

    On Oct. 12, 1971,(6) after Mr. Chet Holifield, of 
California, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of a bill to establish an office of 
consumer affairs, Mr. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, of New York, made a point 
of order against the consideration of the bill. Speaker pro tempore 
Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, heard the point of order, which Mr. Rosenthal 
stated was based on a rule of the Committee on Government Operations 
providing that every committee report be approved by majority vote of 
the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Mr. Rosenthal 
stated that the accompanying report was not approved by a majority vote 
of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 35820-24, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 10835, the Consumer Protection Act of 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . Mr. Speaker, it is my humble view that 
    implicit in that House rule is the requirement that the report 
    accompanying the legislation be a valid report and if that report 
    is in violation of the rules of the committee and, thus, invalid, 
    the report being deficient, the entire legislative package is 
    deficient and thus cannot be considered by the House. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, to restate my point as concisely and clearly as I 
    can, the Committee on Government Operations has a specific rule 
    requiring specific approval of every report. This legislative 
    package is deficient by virtue of the powers of that rule, and I 
    raise a point of order against the consideration of this 
    legislation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard?
        Mr. Holifield: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The Spearer Pro Tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Rosenthal) has no valid basis for his argument. I shall 
    make my points briefly:

[[Page 3130]]

        First. The gentleman from New York does not validly interpret 
    the committee rule in question. . . .
        Second. The action of the committee in approving H.R. 10835 and 
    directing the chairman to bring it to the floor governs in the 
    present situation. The motion to approve and report H.R. 10835 
    occurred as follows:

            Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill H.R. 10835, 
        as amended, be reported to the House and that the Chairman take 
        the necessary steps to bring it to the floor.
            Chairman Holifield: Is there a second?
            Mr. Erlenborn: Second.
            The Chairman: It has been moved and seconded that the bill 
        be approved and that the Chairman take the usual steps to bring 
        it up for consideration on the floor. We will have a roll call 
        vote on this.

        The motion was made and voted upon without objection and 
    thereafter arrangements were made to allow Members 3 calendar days 
    to file additional views, again without objection.
        The motion and the other arrangements reflect the committee's 
    longstanding understanding that House Rule XI, 27(d)(1) governs the 
    reporting of legislation rather than Committee Rule 4.
        In any event, the motion was accepted and voted upon without 
    any objection having been made and with a quorum present and 
    voting. Every provision of the House rules was complied with. The 
    chairman is bound by the terms of the motion adopted by the 
    committee. Even if a timely point of order on the failure to vote 
    on the report under the committee rule would have been in order, it 
    was not raised until 3 days after the committee accepted and 
    adopted the motion without objection.
        The precedents of the House hold that where a motion not in 
    order under the rules is made without objection and agreed to by 
    the House by majority vote, the action is binding on the House and 
    the Speaker and is no longer subject to a point of order. In fact, 
    it is the duty of the Speaker to proceed to the business as 
    indicated by the House--IV Hinds' sec. 3177; V Hinds' sec. 6917.
        These precedents are applicable to the committee action on H.R. 
    10835.
        Third. Where a committee action violates certain rules of the 
    House, for example-voting to report a measure without a quorum 
    being present, Rule XI, 27(e)--a point of order may be made at an 
    appropriate time on the House floor. In some situations such as 
    violation of a House rule governing the conduct of hearings, the 
    rules specifically require that the point of order be first made in 
    the committee (House Rule XI, 27(f)(5)).
        In the present instance, if any rule was violated--and we 
    believe this did not occur--it was a committee rule and not a House 
    rule. Under these circumstances the point of order should have been 
    made before and decided upon by the committee. All House rules 
    having been met, the forum for deciding the issue is the committee, 
    not the House.
        The Speaker has repeatedly ruled against points of order based 
    upon alleged irregularities in Committee procedures which did not 
    violate a rule of the House. See IV Hinds' Precedents sections 
    4592, 4593, and 4594.
        Fourth. Finally, I would not want it to be thought that the 
    desires of the

[[Page 3131]]

    committee members are ignored in the preparation of the chairman's 
    report. The suggestions of at least four Members, including the 
    gentleman from New York, were taken into account and included in 
    the report. Very often points to be included in the report are 
    discussed at the subcommittee and full committee meetings and 
    almost always the suggestions are adopted. I note that other 
    committees of the House have various types of procedures to allow 
    members to make similar suggestions. In no case, however, have I 
    found that the committees actually vote on the reports themselves. 
    As the precedents point out--IV Hinds' sec. 4674--the report of a 
    committee is in the nature of an argument or explanation and does 
    not come before the House for amendment or other action. There is 
    wisdom behind the rule and precedents here, because if the 
    committee had to come to agreement on every word in the legislative 
    report, very little business would get done. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rosenthal) care to be heard further?
        Mr. Rosenthal: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard 
    further on this, briefly.
        Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that as I interpret the rules, 
    there is no burden on me, on this Member or any other Member, to 
    see to it that the rules are appropriately enforced. It would seem 
    to me that that burden rightfully is placed on the chairman of the 
    respective committee and it is his obligation to abide by the 
    rules.
        Second, my distinguished chairman said that this rule has been 
    in existence since 1953 and we have been violating it since 1953--
    we have never complied with it since 1953. So far as I am concerned 
    that is most regrettable.
        The chairman went on to say that what the committee rule means 
    is that only investigative reports should be voted on by the 
    committee. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, I again assert the position I have stated that the 
    rule is precise and clear and that no Member of the Congress has 
    the right to waive that rule.
        If the rule needs to be changed, then the change ought to have 
    been made at the appropriate time and place.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has raised a point of order against 
    the consideration of H.R. 10835 on the ground that the Committee on 
    Government Operations did not meet to approve the report on that 
    bill, House Report No. 92-542, as allegedly required by rule 4 of 
    that committee.
        The Chair has listened carefully to the arguments on this point 
    of order and has referred to the committee rule cited by the 
    gentleman from New York. The Chair has also reexamined the 
    provisions of rule XI of the rules of the House with respect to the 
    procedures for reporting bills to the House. He has also examined 
    the precedents cited in the argument. The ruling of the Chair is in 
    three parts:
        First, the right of members of the Committee on Government 
    Operations to file minority views, as guaranteed by clause 27(d)(4) 
    of rule XI, was protected in this instance. The bill was ordered 
    reported on Monday, September

[[Page 3132]]

    27. The chairman did not file the report until late on Thursday, 
    September 30. Those members wishing to file minority views were 
    afforded the opportunity to do so.
        Second, the gentleman from California has stated that in the 
    more than 18 years since this rule was first adopted in the 
    Committee on Government Operations, the consistent interpretation 
    of the committee has been that while investigative reports require 
    committee approval, legislative reports on bills or resolutions do 
    not. This interpretation conforms with that of the House, where the 
    report accompanying a bill or resolutions is in the nature of an 
    argument or explanation of the reported measure, the committee 
    report itself is not brought before the House for action or 
    amendment.
        The Chair might also add that even if the committee wishes to 
    put a different interpretation of its rule, it is a matter which 
    should be decided in the committee. The record seems clear that the 
    point was not raised at the time this bill was ordered reported. 
    Finally, the Chair would like to point out that even if the 
    committee rule were to be construed as applicable to reports on 
    legislative matters, the motion directing the chairman of the 
    committee to report the bill to the House was a later expression of 
    the committee's will. The chairman of the Committee on Government 
    Operations before submitting the motion to the committee, stated 
    the question as follows:

            It has been moved and seconded that the bill be approved 
        and that the Chairman take the usual steps to bring it up for 
        consideration on the floor.

        This motion carried in the committee by a vote of 24 to 4. 
    Subsequently, the Chair did, in fact, take the usual steps to bring 
    the matter to the floor. His actions were in accord with the 
    established practices of the committee and were taken in compliance 
    with the rules of this House.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Remedying Defects in Reporting of Bill

Sec. 58.6 Defects in reporting a bill by a standing committee may be 
    remedied by adoption of a special rule from the Committee on Rules 
    making in order consideration of such bill and waiving appropriate 
    points of order.

    On May 2, 1939,(7) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
made a point of order against House Resolution 175, which provided that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House for 
consideration of H.R. 5643 (a bill giving federal circuit courts 
jurisdiction over orders of deportation of aliens). Mr. Dickstein 
contended that the bill did not have a hearing before the appropriate 
legislative committee, and that there was no proper report from the 
committee authorized to conduct the hearings. Mr. Dickstein argued that 
although the bill was
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3133]]

``100 percent immigration,'' it was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary instead of the Committee on Immigration.

    Following debate on the point of order, Speaker William B. Bank 
head, of Alabama, overruled the point of order on the ground that Mr. 
Dickstein had ``slept upon his rights'' and should have provoked a 
motion to rerefer the bill from the Committee on the Judiciary to the 
Committee on Immigration before it was reported. An additional basis 
for overruling the point of order was then suggested by Mr. Carl E. 
Mapes, of Michigan, who stated:

        Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the rights of the Committee on 
    Rules, will the Chair permit this observation? The gentleman from 
    New York slept on his rights further until the Committee on Rules 
    reported a rule making the consideration of this measure in order. 
    Even though the reference had been erroneous and the point of order 
    had been otherwise made in time, the Committee on Rules has the 
    right to change the rules and report a rule making the legislation 
    in order. This point also might be taken into consideration by the 
    Speaker, if necessary.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For a full discussion of special rules, see Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waivers of Points of Order

Sec. 58.7 Where the House grants unanimous consent for consideration of 
    a bill and provides that all points of order against the bill shall 
    be considered as waived, such waiver applies also to the committee 
    report on the bill.

    On July 19, 1947,(9) after Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of H.R. 4214, providing for a Secretary of 
Defense and other national defense measures, Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of 
New York, made a point of order against consideration of the bill on 
the ground that at least 24 hours had not intervened between the time 
the bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 93 Cong. Rec. 9396, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3134]]

was available and the time the bill was called up.

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, overruled the 
point of order, noting that all points of order against the bill had 
been waived by a unanimous-consent agreement by the 
House.(10) Mr. Cole then raised several parliamentary 
inquiries as to whether a point of order would lie against the 
committee report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 93 Cong. Rec. 9095, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1947, where 
        Mr. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.), asked unanimous consent, in 
        pertinent part, as follows: ``Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
        consent that it may be in order on Friday next and thereafter 
        to consider the bill H.R. 4214, that all points of order 
        against the said bill be considered as waived.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. I am further 
    advised that although the bill is available this morning, the 
    report accompanying the bill is not. Would it be in order to raise 
    a point of order against the motion of the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Hoffman] upon the ground that the report is not now available?
        The Speaker: It would not be in order because the same ruling 
    would apply. All points of order were waived under the unanimous-
    consent agreement.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker a further parliamentary 
    inquiry. I am informed that the report does not comply with the 
    rules of the House in that it does not set forth alterations 
    proposed by the bill to existing law. My inquiry is whether the 
    request of the gentleman from Indiana, the majority leader, that 
    points of order against the bill be waived also carried with it the 
    waiving of points of order against the report which is supposed to 
    accompany the bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair is compelled to make the same ruling in 
    this instance also. All points of order were waived under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement and, therefore, the raising of that 
    point of order at this time would not be in order.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker without undertaking to 
    dispute the decision, I call your attention to the fact that the 
    request for waiving points of order was directed to the bill 
    itself. Does the Speaker rule that the waiving of points of order 
    against the bill carried with it the waiving of points of order 
    against the report?
        The Speaker: Yes.                          -------------------

Improper Action in Committee as Affecting Reporting

Sec. 58.8 The Chair has overruled, on the ground that the Chair had no 
    information as to what occurred in a committee, a point of order 
    alleging that a bill was not properly before the House because it 
    had not been read for amendment in committee prior to reporting.

    On Apr. 23, 1934,(11) the Committee on Banking and 
Currency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 78 Cong. Rec. 7151-61, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3135]]

reported a bill, H.R. 7908,(12) which was on the Calendar of 
Motions to Discharge Committees. Despite the reporting of the measure 
by the Committee on Banking and Currency, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of 
Michigan, attempted to call up the motion to discharge the committee of 
H.R. 7908. It developed in the debate that Mr. McLeod and Mr. Jesse P. 
Wolcott, of Michigan, viewed the reporting of the bill by the committee 
as void ab initio on the grounds that the committee ordered the 
reporting of the measure at a time when it sat during a session of the 
House without the permission of the House and also because the measure 
reported was not read before the committee. In fact, argued the 
proponents of the discharge motion, the bill that was reported by the 
committee was a committee substitute, the former H.R. 9175, which the 
committee had inserted after striking all but the enacting clause of 
the original bill that had been the subject of the discharge petition 
signed by the requisite number of Members.(13) After Speaker 
Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, sustained a point of order against the 
calling up of the motion to discharge the committee, on the basis that 
``inasmuch as the Committee on Banking and Currency has reported the 
bill, that the effect of that action nullifies the motion to discharge 
and makes it inoperative,(14) Mr. Carroll L. Beedy, of 
Maine, then raised a point of order against the bill as reported by the 
committee because it had never been read for amendment in the committee 
and was, he argued, not regularly before the House. Mr. Beedy stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The bill concerned payments of assets in closed banks.
13. At that time, only 145 signatures were required on a discharge 
        petition. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual (1934). 
        See also Ch. 18, infra.
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 7161, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment to 
    the McLeod bill, so called, was not introduced in the House until 
    the 17th of April subsequent to the time when any bill of the kind 
    was ever read for amendment in the committee. This fact is 
    undenied.
        The bill that was reported never was read for amendment in the 
    committee. It is not legally or validly upon the calendar of the 
    House. While the decision of the Chair well presents the fact, 
    assuming that the bill were legally before the House, the Chair has 
    not touched upon the question as to whether it may be in order to 
    call up the discharge rule if the bill attempted to be reported by 
    the committee concerned was not regularly before the House, not 
    having been considered according to the rules of the House.

[[Page 3136]]

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order, therefore, that the 
    bill alleged to have been reported is not legally reported, is in 
    violation of the rules of the House and of the committees of the 
    House and has no valid standing in the House.(l5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In overruling the point of order, the Speaker advised that he had 
no knowledge as to what had occurred in committee, stating:

        The House passed on that question a few moments ago in a 
    resolution raising the question of the privileges of the House, and 
    passed upon the question adversely to the position taken by the 
    gentleman from Maine.
        The Chair has no information as to what occurred in the 
    committee. The only thing the Chair knows is that the McLeod bill, 
    bearing the number it has always borne and with the same title, and 
    with some amendments in which the Chair is not interested, has been 
    reported out, is on the calendar, and can be taken up under the 
    general rules of the House when an opportunity presents itself.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An appeal from the Speaker's ruling was laid on the table.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Beedy's contention that the bill was 
not properly before the House, since it had not been read for amendment 
in committee prior to reporting, had been raised on the resolution 
referred to by the Speaker (see H. Res. 349, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 
23, 1934, H. Jour. 429). The contention was based on the requirement of 
Jefferson's Manual (see House Rules and Manual Sec. 412 [1979]) that, 
in the case of bills originating with or referred to committees, ``in 
every case the whole paper is read . . . by paragraphs, pausing at the 
end of each paragraph, and putting questions for amending, if 
proposed.''
    A point of order based on this requirement, however, lies only in 
committee, not in the House, in accordance with the general principle 
that a point of order does not ordinarily lie in the House against 
consideration of a bill by reason of defective committee procedures 
occurring prior to the time the bill was ordered reported to the House. 
Determinations as to proper committee procedure are for the committee 
to make, except where the House rules specifically permit such 
objections to consideration.